1. NAS1M HASAN SHAH, J. ---This petition is directed against the judgment dated 18-12-1979 passed by the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 855/R of 1973.
2. The relevant facts are that the property in question was transferred to Sardar Muhammad and Mohammad Hussain by the Deputy Settle--ment Commissioner against their Form N. C. H. On 1-1- 1960. They surrendered their rights in favour of Nabi Bakhsh (who is presently represented by his son Abdul Ghafoor, respondent No. 2 herein). The father of respondent No. 2 Nabi Bakhsh served a notice on the Peti--tioners under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act demanding rent from them. This demand was not complied with and the ejectment proceedings were initiated against them. The petitioner moved an application before the Deputy Settle--ment Commissioner claiming that the property in their possession was, in fact, a plot over which they had raised constructions and, therefore, it could not have been transferred in favour of Sardar Muhammad and Mubammad Hussain as a house. It appears that after the disposal of the property as a house against Form N. C. H, of Nabi Bakhsh and Sardar Muhammad, the petitioner bad filed a form under Settlement Scheme No. VI. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejected the petitioner's application of 1-2-63 after which protracted litigation followed and the matter went upto the High Court on two occasions. Ultimately by an order dated 20-:0-1971 passed by the High Court on the last occa--sion, a direction was issued to the Settlement Commissioner that he should dispose of the case himself. The learned Settlement Com--missioner thereupon examined the entire case and in a detailed order passed by him on 27-7-1973 held that the property in question was a residential house though wrongly shown as "demolished" in the Excise and Taxation Office Record. He further observed that the house, no doubt, was in a bad condition. The house, it was also remarked, had three rooms. However, he gave a positive finding that there was no proof on the record that these rooms were constructed by the petitioner. Consequently, by his order dated 27-7-1973 the transfer of the property as, a house to Nabi Bakhsh and Sardar Muhammad, the predecessor-in---interest of respondent No. 2 herein was upheld. This order was chal--lenged before the Lahore High Court once again by Writ Petition No. 855-R/73 and the learned Single Judge in the High Court again care--fully considered the matter including all documents placed on the record and came to the conclusion that there was no material on the record to establish that the building was completely demolished. On the other hand, there was material on the record to indicate that the nature of the property was a house and that the petitioner had not raised any construction thereon and was, thus, not entitled to the transfer of the property. Another circumstance taken into consideration was that Muhammad Hussain and Sardar Muhammad were transferred the property on 1-1-1960 and P. T. D. Was issued in their favour on 27-4-1962. It was long after the issuance of the P. T. D. After the ejectment proceedings were commenced against the petitioners that they got the case reopened. In these circumstances no ground was found for interference with the order of the Settlement Commissioner. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Mr. Muhammad Naseem, learned counsel for the petitioner, addressed a lengthy argument before us in which he has submitted that the petitioners had submitted B. S. Form as early as 25-8-1950 and that they should have been heard before the transfer of the house against N. C. H. Form to Muhammad Hussain and Sardar Muhammad. We do not find much force in this contention because the matter finally had been decided by the learned Settlement Commissioner after hearing the parties at great length considering all the relevant documents and the other material placed before him and had come to the conclusion that the property was, indeed, a house and not building site over which the petitioners had raised any construction. In view of this situation there is no force in the plea that the petitioners we not heard at some earlier stage when the whole matter was re-opened and the case of the petitioners considered on merit. He further submitted that even if the property was a house, the constructed portion was only three rooms and that Sardar Muhammad and Muhammad Hussain had been given the whole property although they were not in possession of the whole of it. This point, however, was not urged before the learned Single Judge of the High Court.We are not, therefore, inclined to allow it to be agitated in a petition directed, against the last mentioned order of the High Court in these proceedings.
4. After giving our serious consideration to all respects of the matter w feet that the question raised, namely, whether the property was a house o a building site and whether the construction existing over it was raised b the petitioner has been considered in full detail by the ultimate authority e in the Settlement Department which has finally held that the property in question was a house and not a building site. In these circumstances the High Court has rightly declined to interfere and we on our part are also not inclined to interfere in such a matter.
5. The result is that this petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby.